October 13, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
PABLITO ANDAYA, respondent.
BERSAMIN, J.

NATURE: Appeal from decision of the CA

FACTS:
Petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz was charged with violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 for selling, dispensing, and delivering 0.09g of shabu.
The Prosecution presented five witnesses (four police officers and the forensic chemist). Their informant, who also acted as poseur
buyer in the buy-bust operation prior to the arrest of the accused, was not presented for testimony. (Note that poseur buyer here
was a private individual and not a police officer.
According to the police officer witnesses:
o At 8:00 pm of December 16, 2002, their asset who was conducting surveillance of Andaya in Brgy. San Jose Sico, Batangas,
arrived at the police station and reported that he had arranged to buy shabu from Pablito.
o A team of police officers and asset Bagsit was constituted to conduct a buy-bust. Two pieces of P100 bills were duly marked X
and recorded in the police blotter, after which the police gave the bills to the asset.
o Upon reaching the designated place, the members alighted from their vehicles and occupied different positions where they
could see and observe the asset. The asset then knocked on the door of Pablitos house. Pablito came out. Pablito and the
asset talked briefly. The asset gave Pablito the marked money. The asset received something from appellant. The pre-arranged
signal signifying consummation of the transaction was given. The team members thus approached Pablito and the asset,
introduced themselves as police officers, arrested the accused and brought him to the police station.
o (Chain of custody was also established by prosecution as to the merchandise handed by accused to asset being sent to the
crime lab and found positive for shabu, and as to the recording and turnover of the marked bills as evidence).
On the part of the accused (not that relevant to the case)
o Accused denied the charge and stated that he was at home watching TV that evening when police officers arrived. When he
opened the door an officer poked his gun at him. He was handcuffed brought outside, while the police officers searched his
house. No gun or shabu was found, but he was still brought to the station and detained. He was released after three days but
nonetheless received a subpoena from the prosecution afterward.
o Wife corroborated the testimony, alleging also the loss of their cellphone and the money in his wallet. She also alleged that the
police had asked P5000 from them.
RTC Ruling: Accused was guilty. RTC gave credence to the testimony of the prosecution and pointed to the glaring inconsistencies in the
testimony of the defense.
CA Ruling: Upheld the RTC. CA also overruled the argument of the defense that the non-presentation of the informant was adverse to the
prosecution, holding that there was no need for the prosecution to present the confidential informer especially since the protection of their
identity was necessary to preserve their invaluable service to the police.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the presentation of the asset/ informant who also served as poseur buyer in a buy-bust operation is necessary to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt (YES)

RATIO:
To secure the conviction of the accused charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, the State must establish the
concurrence of the following elements:
a) That the transaction or sale took place between the accused and the poseur buyer
b) That the dangerous drugs subject to the transaction or sale is presented in court as evidence of the corpus delicti
The buy-bust operation is a valid and legitimate form of entrapment. The justification that underlies this legitimacy is that the suspect is
arrested in flagrante delicto, that is, the suspect has just committed, or is in the act of committing, or is attempting to commit the offense in
the presence of the arresting police officer or private person. The arresting police officer or private person is favored in such instance with
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.
However, proof of the transaction must be credible and complete, and the State still has the burden of proving the illegal sale of the
dangerous drug beyond reasonable doubt because of the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
Here, the State did not present the confidential informant/ poseur buyer during the trial to describe how exactly the transaction between
him and Andaya had taken place. There would have been no issue against it except that none of the members of the buy-bust team had
directly witnessed the transaction due to their being positioned at a distance from the poseur buyer and Andaya at the moment of the
supposed transaction.
The CA ruling was off-tangent in that the rulings it cited to support the need to conceal the confidential informant identity related to
confidential informants who gave information against suspected drug dealers. The presentation of the confidential informants as witnesses
in those instances could be excused because there were poseur buyers who directly incriminated the accused. In this case, however, the
poseur buyer and the confidential informant were one and the same. Without the poseur buyers testimony, the state did not credibly
incriminate Andaya.
Under the law, selling was any act "of giving away any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical whether for
money or any other consideration;" while delivering was any act "of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or
otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration." Given the legal characterizations of the acts constituting the offense
charged, the members of the buy-bust team could not incriminate Andaya by simply declaring that they had seen from their positions the
poseur buyer handing something to Andaya who, in turn, gave something to the poseur buyer. If the transaction was a sale, it was
unwarranted to infer from such testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team that what the poseur buyer handed over were the marked
P100.00 bills and that what Andaya gave to the poseur buyer was the shabu purchased.
The SC also noted the ambiguity of the pre-arranged signal, since the record did not show what it consisted of. The reliance on the
supposed signal to establish consummation of the transaction was unwarranted because the unmitigatedly hearsay character of the signal
rendered it entirely bereft of trustworthiness. The arresting members of the buy-bust team interpreted the signal from the anonymous
poseur buyer as the sign of the consummation of the transaction. Their interpretation, being necessarily subjective without the testimony
of the poseur buyer, unfairly threatened the liberty of Andaya. The reliance on the signal would deprive Andaya the right to confront and
test the credibility of the poseur buyer who supposedly gave it. Also, the arrest did not emanate from probable cause, for the formless
 signal from the anonymous poseur buyer did not establish beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under
Sec. 5.
As to presumption of regularity in the performance of duties, such is only a purely evidentiary tool intended to avoid the impossible and
time-consuming task of establishing every detail of the performance by officials and functionaries of the government. Conversion by no
means defeat the much stronger and much firmer presumption of innocence in favor of every person whose life, property and liberty
comes under the risk of forfeiture on the strength of a false criminal accusation.

DISPOSITIVE: CA decision SET ASIDE. Accused AQUITTED.